-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Dana Spiegel
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 5:08 PM
To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
Subject: [nycwireless] Fwd: Congress is selling out the Internet
Dear MoveOn member,
Do you buy books online, use Google, or download to an Ipod?
These activities, plus MoveOn's online organizing ability,
will be hurt if Congress passes a radical law that gives
giant corporations more control over the Internet.
Internet providers like AT&T and Verizon are lobbying Congress
hard
to gut
Network Neutrality, the Internet's First Amendment. Net
Neutrality prevents AT&T from choosing which websites open
most easily for you
based
on which site pays AT&T more. Amazon.com doesn't have to
outbid Barnes & Noble for the right to work more properly on
your computer.
If Net Neutrality is gutted, MoveOn either pays protection
money to dominant Internet providers or risks that online
activism tools don't
work
for members. Amazon and Google either pay protection money or
risk that their websites process slowly on your computer.
That why these high-tech pioneers are joining the fight to
protect Network Neutrality [1]--and
you
can do your part today.
The free and open Internet is under seige--can you sign this
petition letting your member of Congress know you support
preserving Network Neutrality? Click here:
http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=7355-3566631-
h60jchVLX1e9.A7zdEdFew&t=4
Then, please forward this to 3 friends. Protecting the free
and open Internet is fundamental--it affects everything. When
you sign this petition, you'll be kept informed of the next
steps we can take to keep the heat on Congress. Votes begin
in a House committee next week.
MoveOn has already seen what happens when the Internet's
gatekeepers get too much control. Just last week, AOL blocked
any email mentioning a coalition that MoveOn is a part of,
which opposes AOL's proposed "email tax." [2] And last year,
Canada's version of AT&T--Telus--blocked their Internet
customers from visiting a website sympathetic to workers with
whom Telus was negotiating [3].
Politicians don't think we are paying attention to this
issue. Many of them take campaign checks from big telecom
companies and are on the
verge
of selling out to people like AT&T's CEO, who openly says,
"The internet can't be free." [4]
Together, we can let Congress know we are paying attention.
We can make sure they listen to our voices and the voices of
people like Vint
Cerf, a
father of the Internet and Google's "Chief Internet
Evangelist," who recently wrote this to Congress in support
of preserving Network
Neutrality:
My fear is that, as written, this bill would do great
damage to the
Internet as we know it. Enshrining a rule that broadly
permits
network
operators to discriminate in favor of certain kinds of
services
and to
potentially interfere with others would place broadband
operators in
control of online activity...Telephone companies cannot tell
consumers
who they can call; network operators should not dictate
what people
can do online [4].
The essence of the Internet is at risk--can you sign this
petition
letting
your member of Congress know you support preserving Network
Neutrality? Click here:
http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=7355-3566631-
h60jchVLX1e9.A7zdEdFew&t=5
Please forward to 3 others who care about this issue. Thanks
for all you do.
--Eli Pariser, Adam Green, Noah T. Winer, and the MoveOn.org
Civic
Action
team
Thursday, April 20th, 2006
P.S. If Congress abandons Network Neutrality, who will be
affected?
* Advocacy groups like MoveOn--Political organizing could be
slowed by a
handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy
groups
to pay
"protection money" for their websites and online features
to work
correctly.
* Nonprofits--A charity's website could open at snail-speed,
and
online
contributions could grind to a halt, if nonprofits can't pay
dominant
Internet providers for access to "the fast lane" of Internet
service.
* Google users--Another search engine could pay dominant
Internet
providers like AT&T to guarantee the competing search
engine opens
faster than Google on your computer.
* Innovators with the "next big idea"--Startups and
entrepreneurs
will
be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that
pay
Internet providers for dominant placing on the Web. The
little guy
will be left in the "slow lane" with inferior Internet
service,
unable
to compete.
* Ipod listeners--A company like Comcast could slow access
to iTunes,
steering you to a higher-priced music service that it owned.
* Online purchasers--Companies could pay Internet providers to
guarantee their online sales process faster than competitors
with lower prices--distorting your choice as a consumer.
* Small businesses and tele-commuters--When Internet companies
like AT&T
favor their own services, you won't be able to choose more
affordable
providers for online video, teleconferencing, Internet
phone calls,
and software that connects your home computer to your
office.
* Parents and retirees--Your choices as a consumer could be
controlled
by your Internet provider, steering you to their
preferred services
for online banking, health care information, sending photos,
planning
vacations, etc.
* Bloggers--Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and
audio
clips--silencing citizen journalists and putting more
power in the
hands of a few corporate-owned media outlets.
To sign the petition to Congress supporting "network
neutrality,"
click
here:
http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=7355-3566631-
h60jchVLX1e9.A7zdEdFew&t=6
P.P.S. This excerpt from the New Yorker really sums up this
issue well.
In the first decades of the twentieth century, as a national
telephone
network spread across the United States, A.T. & T. adopted a
policy of
"tiered access" for businesses. Companies that paid an
extra fee
got
better service: their customers' calls went through
immediately,
were
rarely disconnected, and sounded crystal-clear. Those
who didn't
pony
up had a harder time making calls out, and people calling
them
sometimes got an "all circuits busy" response. Over
time, customers
gravitated toward the higher-tier companies and away
from the ones
that were more difficult to reach. In effect, A.T. & T.'s
policy
turned it into a corporate kingmaker.
If you've never heard about this bit of business
history, there's a
good reason: it never happened. Instead, A.T. & T. had to
abide
by a
"common carriage" rule: it provided the same quality of
service to
all, and could not favor one customer over another. But,
while
"tiered
access" never influenced the spread of the telephone
network, it is
becoming a major issue in the evolution of the Internet.
Until recently, companies that provided Internet access
followed a
de-facto commoncarriage rule, usually called "network
neutrality,"
which meant that all Web sites got equal treatment. Network
neutrality
was considered so fundamental to the success of the Net that
Michael
Powell, when he was chairman of the F.C.C., described it
as one
of the
basic rules of "Internet freedom." In the past few
months, though,
companies like A.T. & T. and BellSouth have been trying to
scuttle it.
In the future, Web sites that pay extra to providers
could receive
what BellSouth recently called "special treatment," and
those that
don't could end up in the slow lane. One day, BellSouth
customers may
find that, say, NBC.com loads a lot faster than
YouTube.com, and
that
the sites BellSouth favors just seem to run more smoothly.
Tiered
access will turn the providers into Internet gatekeepers
[4].
Sources:
1. "Telecommunication Policy Proposed by Congress Must Recognize
Internet
Neutrality," Letter to Senate leaders, March 23, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1653
2. "AOL Blocks Critics' E-Mails," Los Angeles Times, April
14, 2006 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1649
3. "B.C. Civil Liberties Association Denounces Blocking of
Website by Telus," British Columbia Civil Liberties
Association Statement, July 27, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1650
4. "At SBC, It's All About 'Scale and Scope," BusinessWeek,
November 7, 2002 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1648
5. "Net Losses," New Yorker, March 20, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1646
6. "Don't undercut Internet access," San Francisco Chronicle
editorial, April 17, 2006 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1645
Dana Spiegel
Executive Director
NYCwireless
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.NYCwireless.net
+1 917 402 0422
Read the Wireless Community blog:
http://www.wirelesscommunity.info
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe:
http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
-- No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 268.4.4/320 - Release
Date: 4/20/2006
